VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.9.2001 passed by Shri Satya Prakash, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 274 of 1995 whereby and whereunder they were found guilty and convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentence to undergo R.I. for life and appellant No. 1 Pyare Darbey and appellant No. 2, Doha Darbey were also further found guilty under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. Co -accused Tumo Devi has also been found guilty for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the period already gone by her in custody. However, co -accused Tumo Devi has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the FIR (Ext. 5) of PW 9 Manti Kuwar, the son of Sukar Kuwar, the deceased of this case lodged before Jama P.S. on 8.6.1995 at 7.45 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 6.30 hours in village Karhia, P.S. Jama, District Dumka. The FIR has been received in the Court empowered to take cognizance on 9.6.1995 i.e. the following day of the occurrence in question. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there is a date tree of appellant No. 1, Pyare Darbey on the western ridge of the field of the informant and the seeds of the date tree had fallen in the field of the informant and about 6.30 hours on the day of the occurrence, appellant Pyare Darbey was asked to remove the said seeds but when it was not removed by the said appellant PW 8, Santia Devi wife of his brother PW 7, Shanti Kuwar collected the seeds aforesaid and had kept the same on the western ridge aforesaid and at this appellant Pyare Darbey started abusing her. It is alleged that the informant was ploughing his land in the close vicinity of the said field and on hearing the altercation he went there and at this appellant Pyare Darbey called his family members and ordered them to come there with lathi and Hasua (Dab) to kill them and appellant Pyare Darbey also ran to his house and brought tangi. The prosecution case further is that appellant No. 2 Doha Darbey and appellant No. 3 Ratni Darwain and convicted co -accused Tumo Devi besides co -accused Rabindra Darbey came there armed with Hasua (Dab), lathi and sabal respectively abusing the informant and PW 8, Santia Devi and in the meantime Sukar Mahto, the father of the informant also came there. The prosecution case further is that all the three appellants assaulted Sukar Kuwar by their respective weapons with which they were armed with causing injury on his head, left Hasuli (near the neck), below right knee, left knee and left elbow causing bleeding injuries as a result of which Sukar Kuwar fell down in the field of the informant and became unconscious and he died due to excessive bleeding as a result of the said injuries. It is also alleged that PW 9, the informant, his brother PW 7, Shanti Kuwar and also PW 8, Santia Devi, the wife of PW 7 attempted to rescue Sukar Kuwar and co -accused Rabindra Darbey assaulted the informant (PW 9) by sabal causing injuries near his right knee and convicted co -accused Tumo Devi by lathi causing injury on his left wrist and appellant Doha Darbey and Pyare Darbey assaulted PW 7, Shanti Kuwar by Hasua (Dab) and tangi respectively causing grievous injury on his person and convicted co -accused Tumo Devi, assaulted PW 8 Santia Devi by lathi causing injury on her head below left knee and left wrist. It is also alleged that the appellant Pyare Darbey is the husband of the cousin sister of the informant and he resides in the adjacent house of the informant and he is on litigating terms with the informant. Lastly it has been alleged that co -villagers, namely. PW 5, Bhakti Mal. PW 2, Debu Raut, PW 3, Janardan Rant, PW 4, Radhan Raut besides others have witnesses the occurrence. Trial of co -accused Rabindra Darbey was split up vide order dated 12.9.1995 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was remitted to the Juvenile Court as the said co -accused was found to be juvenile aged about 12 years.
(3.) THE appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity which is existing and alive and the informant and others have assaulted all the appellants aforesaid by iron rod and Hasua (Dab) causing injuries on their person and for that a case was also lodged by the appellants against the informant and others on the same day before the Jama P.S. and the informant with a view to counter blast the case filed by the appellants has falsely implicated them in this got up case.;